Keene Activist May Be Jailed Tomorrow Morning 8/15 Over a U-Turn!

[EthanAllen]

How are we to determine whether or not individual rights are being infringed upon on the sidewalk? Who is going to enforce that individual rights are not violated?

[Caleb]

As a pacifist, I say "there is no `if'". There are only moral commands. There is no right to enforce them.

[Caleb]

yes, dale, ethan is frank/bill

[mackler]

"Driving" (use of the public ways for commercial activity) is a privilege, granted by the guardians of the public lands and ways (now known as the government)

You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity.   Operating any self-propelled is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.

What most don't know is that they have applied for and contracted with the state to become a commercial user of the public ways, and therefore agree to be regulated.

I don't believe this.  It's definitely not true in New Hampshire.  All persons are subject to the rules of the road, licensed or not.

This brief has this legal distinction described in detail: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm
...
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. "

NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile.

and
"Driver'' shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle or an OHRV or snowmobile.

Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity.

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak.  Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.

This brief lays out the distinction pretty well and is a good read. I recommend it for better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as automobile v. motor vehicle, traveller v. driver, operator, traffic, license and other important words to use properly.

This brief is a good read, but it doesn't say anything about the law in New Hampshire.  All the cases cited are from other states.  In New Hampshire there is no "right" to operate a self-propellel vehicle on any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway.

[mackler]

Is driving a privilege or a right?

On your own property: a right.

On a public way in New Hampshire: a privilege.

[jaqeboy]

"Driving" (use of the public ways for commercial activity) is a privilege, granted by the guardians of the public lands and ways (now known as the government)

You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity.   Operating any self-propelled is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.

We differ. See explanations below:

What most don't know is that they have applied for and contracted with the state to become a commercial user of the public ways, and therefore agree to be regulated.

I don't believe this.  It's definitely not true in New Hampshire.  All persons are subject to the rules of the road, licensed or not.

We differ again. See below:

This brief has this legal distinction described in detail: http://www.arkenterprises.com/ritepriv.htm
...
The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. " [emphasis added]

NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile. [emphasis added]

and
"Driver'' shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle or an OHRV or snowmobile. [emphasis added]

Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity. [no, because it presumes the definition of driving to be commercial - jaqeboy]

We differ again. This all appears to hinge on the definitions of a "vehicle" and "motor vehicle", as opposed to a pleasure conveyance or automobile (again, these seem to be archaic terms, but their etymology and legal definitions are important to understand to get to the bottom of this). I'll see if I can find the important definitions here, but as I understand it, "vehicle" is used in the sense that the truck, coach, omnibus (commercial users) is a vehicle for commerce, a tool for making the commerce happen. A motor vehicle, then, is just one of those with a motor on it to make it self-propelled, rather than being horse-drawn. An automobile might not be used as a "vehicle" (for commerce)

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak.  Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.

It's not "my theory", I'm just quoting the works cited. I don't have a case here, just giving you pointers to things out there on this subject.

New-Hampshire statutes are not over-riding Bovier's - they are using Bovier's definitions.

This brief lays out the distinction pretty well and is a good read. I recommend it for better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as automobile v. motor vehicle [emphasis added], traveller v. driver, operator, traffic, license and other important words to use properly.

This brief is a good read, but it doesn't say anything about the law in New Hampshire.  All the cases cited are from other states.  In New Hampshire there is no "right" to operate a self-propellel vehicle on any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway.

OK, this appears to be the meat of our difference: "...better understanding of the legal uses of some of the terms used in these cases, such as automobile v. motor vehicle..." [emphasis added]

Sorry, but I can't figure out how to point to a place in the text of that brief, so I'll just quote the pertinent part in full here - THIS ONE IS THE KICKER! - the words don't mean what most people thought they meant!:

DEFINITIONS

In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.

AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:

"A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received." International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120.

The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'" City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.

I know, I know - it can't be that reality isn't what we thought it was, can it? It's like the Matrix!

Looking for Bovier's and Black's Law definitions, but they may not be available online.

Found this, though: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/DLbrief.shtml, Driver Licensing vs. Right to Travel - this one has a whole derivation of these (legal) terms through various cases - a sort of common law history.

Barefoot's World has what looks like the same petition, but with some additional references: http://www.barefootsworld.net/sui_juris/right_to_travel.html

[dalebert]

How are we to determine whether or not individual rights are being infringed upon on the sidewalk? Who is going to enforce that individual rights are not violated?

Wow, this is getting pretty basic, Bill. How can you be asking this if you've been on this forum for over a year?

Ultimately, we are responsible for defending our own rights and we have to decide for ourselves when force is justified based on the NAP. I realize there are people who are less able to defend their own rights. Unfortunately, I would have to violate someone's rights in order to force them to defend someone else's rights. We can and should encourage and persuade charitable behavior but we can't force it, not if we are making an honest attempt at being morally consistent. Just as I mustn't steal food from you to feed someone in need, I also mustn't force you to step in front of a loaded gun to defend someone else.

It can be messy but it's actually less arbitrary than what happens when we create a stupid law and an elitist authority figure like a police officer. Our common sense tells us that no one's ability to travel on that sidewalk was being impaired when FSPers gathered around Dave. There was plenty of room to walk by and if anyone really was blocking the way, they would have stepped aside for someone wanting to get by. The police don't hassle a cluster of people waiting to board a bus or stopping and having a brief chat. What the hard and fast law does is let some prick who wants a badge because he was picked on in high school arbitrarily enforce it when behavior he doesn't personally like is happening, like a demonstration that makes him look foolish because he doesn't know NH law.

[mackler]

You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity.   Operating any self-propelled vehicle is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.

We differ. See explanations below:

Yes, we differ.  The difference is that what you're saying is incorrect.

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. " [emphasis added]

NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile. [emphasis added]

and
"Driver'' shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle or an OHRV or snowmobile. [emphasis added]

Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity. [no, because it presumes the definition of driving to be commercial - jaqeboy]

We differ again. This all appears to hinge on the definitions of a "vehicle" and "motor vehicle", as opposed to a pleasure conveyance or automobile (again, these seem to be archaic terms, but their etymology and legal definitions are important to understand to get to the bottom of this). I'll see if I can find the important definitions here, but as I understand it, "vehicle" is used in the sense that the truck, coach, omnibus (commercial users) is a vehicle for commerce, a tool for making the commerce happen. A motor vehicle, then, is just one of those with a motor on it to make it self-propelled, rather than being horse-drawn. An automobile might not be used as a "vehicle" (for commerce)

If your goal is to do anything but lose in court, may I suggest that rather than relying on archaic meanings, you use the terms as defined by legal authorities.

Black's 8th ed.:
vehicle n.

• 1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance.
• 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air.

RSA 259:122
"Vehicle'' shall mean:
    I. ...every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks;

There's nothing in ether definition about pleasure vs. commercial use.  Sorry.  Your assertion is wrong.

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak.  Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.

It's not "my theory", I'm just quoting the works cited. I don't have a case here, just giving you pointers to things out there on this subject.

Exactly.  You don't have a case here.  Your pointer is to some anonymous web page.  Not an authoritative legal source.

New-Hampshire statutes are not over-riding Bovier's - they are using Bovier's definitions.

You're obviously very confused, because the word "employed" does not appear in either Black's or the statutory definition.  Neither uses Bovier's definition.  Your assertion is just wrong.

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

You are totally taking this quote out of context.  That case dealt with an insurance policy.  The insured was covered while using an "automobile."  The insured ran over someone's foot while driving a tractor at a privately-owned amusement park in Manchester.  There was no issue as to whether its use was commercial or not.  The only question was whether this tractor was an "automobile" within the meaning of the insurance policy.

The complete language from the case is:

"The word automobile in its popular sense connotes a 'pleasure vehicle' designed for the transportation of persons on highways. 'Motor vehicle,' more often used as a generic term, has a somewhat broader meaning, and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway. The word automobile is also used as closely synonymous."

You conveniently left out that last sentence: The word automobile is used as closely synonymous with motor vehicle.  That's not me, that's Justice Duncan of the NH Supreme Court, directly contradicting your claim that there is "a clear distinction" between automobiles and motor vehicles.

The court in that case decided that the tractor was an automobile, writing "...the word 'automobile' must be construed to have a meaning at least as broad as the term 'motor vehicle''..."  Obviously, your assertion that automobiles are not for commercial use is flat-out wrong.

The next two cases you cite are not from New Hampshire, so forgive me for not taking the time to explain why they don't support your claims.

Next you continue by selectively quoting the US code.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Again you have conveniently left out important language.  One need only look at the section to which you refer to see that it begins

"In this chapter, the following definitions apply:"

See?  Those definitions only apply to "this chapter."  "This chapter" is "Aircraft and Motor Vehicles" in the federal criminal code.  It deals with destruction of motor vehicle facilites.  It has nothing to do with New Hampshire state driver's license provisions.  Your application of these definitions out-of-context is misleading to say the least!

I know, I know - it can't be that reality isn't what we thought it was, can it? It's like the Matrix!

I know it's fun to think you have discovered some secret legal truth that differs from common sense.  That would be nice.  Believe me, I don't want to have to get a driver's license either.  But the law in New Hampshire requires it if you want to operate your pleasure conveyance on a public way.  If you don't believe me, try using your arguments in a New Hampshire court.

I'll be happy to wager with you on the outcome.

[armlaw]

url=http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXI/263/263-1.htm]operate a self-propellel vehicle on any public highway, street, avenue, road, alley, park or parkway[/url].

You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?

[jaqeboy]

You're incorrect that driving is for commercial activity.   Operating any self-propelled vehicle is driving, even if it's not commercial activity.

We differ. See explanations below:

Yes, we differ.  The difference is that what you're saying is incorrect.

Let me clarify one basic thing: I am not saying any of this, I am providing quotes from others who say it.

The term "driver" in contradistinction to "traveler,": is defined as:

"Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.

Black's (8th) defines driver. 1. "A person who steers and propels a vehicle. " [emphasis added]

NH Statutes define
"Drive,'' in all its moods and tenses, shall mean to operate or be in actual physical control of a motor vehicle, OHRV, or snowmobile. [emphasis added]

and
"Driver'' shall mean a person who drives or is in actual physical control of a motor vehicle or an OHRV or snowmobile. [emphasis added]

Doesn't say anything about driving being commercial activity. [no, because it presumes the definition of driving to be commercial - jaqeboy]

We differ again. This all appears to hinge on the definitions of a "vehicle" and "motor vehicle", as opposed to a pleasure conveyance or automobile (again, these seem to be archaic terms, but their etymology and legal definitions are important to understand to get to the bottom of this). I'll see if I can find the important definitions here, but as I understand it, "vehicle" is used in the sense that the truck, coach, omnibus (commercial users) is a vehicle for commerce, a tool for making the commerce happen. A motor vehicle, then, is just one of those with a motor on it to make it self-propelled, rather than being horse-drawn. An automobile might not be used as a "vehicle" (for commerce)

If your goal is to do anything but lose in court, may I suggest that rather than relying on archaic meanings, you use the terms as defined by legal authorities.

Black's 8th ed.:
vehicle n.

• 1. Something used as an instrument of conveyance.
• 2. Any conveyance used in transporting passengers or things by land, water, or air.

RSA 259:122
"Vehicle'' shall mean:
    I. ...every mechanical device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a way, excepting devices used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks;

There's nothing in ether definition about pleasure vs. commercial use.  Sorry.  Your assertion is wrong.

Again, to be clear, these are not my assertions. They are the assertions of the authors of the works cited. P.S. Do you have access to Black's online? Could you share the link, if so?

Notice that this definition includes one who is "employed" in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be "travelling" on a journey, but is using the road as a place of business.

If your theory is based on Bovier's use of the word "employ" to claim that driving must be commercial activity, then your case is pretty weak.  Both because the word "employ" has non-commercial meanings, but even more because the definitions in the NH statutes override Bovier's.

It's not "my theory", I'm just quoting the works cited. I don't have a case here, just giving you pointers to things out there on this subject.

Exactly.  You don't have a case here.  Your pointer is to some anonymous web page.  Not an authoritative legal source.

Again, to hopefully not be too repetitive, I do not have a case here, either in law or with any parties to this discussion. The pointer is to a web page that is not anonymous, but the author of the brief is unknown in the case of parties that are not known (it was apparently drafted so as to be generic, not case-specific), so I'm not able to verify if said parties won or lost their cases using the brief. The citations in the briefs, I assume, are to real cases - I have no reason to believe otherwise. The arguments all ring true to what I have heard in seminars and from parties in real cases. I don't advise people to try this for themselves, since it is difficult to consistently use the legal language in the correct way, since it is foreign to most of us.

New-Hampshire statutes are not over-riding Bovier's - they are using Bovier's definitions.

You're obviously very confused, because the word "employed" does not appear in either Black's or the statutory definition.  Neither uses Bovier's definition.  Your assertion is just wrong.

I am not confused. Again, just to be clear, I don't make the assertion, it appears to be the assertion of others, and usages within the decisions and opinions cited.

There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:

"The word `automobile' connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways." American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.

You are totally taking this quote out of context.  That case dealt with an insurance policy.  The insured was covered while using an "automobile."  The insured ran over someone's foot while driving a tractor at a privately-owned amusement park in Manchester.  There was no issue as to whether its use was commercial or not.  The only question was whether this tractor was an "automobile" within the meaning of the insurance policy.

The complete language from the case is:

"The word automobile in its popular sense^[1] connotes a 'pleasure vehicle' designed for the transportation of persons on highways. 'Motor vehicle,' more often used as a generic term, has a somewhat broader meaning, and is commonly applied to any form of self-propelled vehicle suitable for use on a street or roadway. The word automobile is also used as closely synonymous."^[2]

You conveniently left out that last sentence: The word automobile is used as closely synonymous with motor vehicle.  That's not me, that's Justice Duncan of the NH Supreme Court, directly contradicting your claim that there is "a clear distinction" between automobiles and motor vehicles.

The court in that case decided that the tractor was an automobile, writing "...the word 'automobile' must be construed to have a meaning at least as broad as the term 'motor vehicle''..."  Obviously, your assertion that automobiles are not for commercial use^[3] is flat-out wrong.

I am not taking any quotes out of context. I am providing links and cut and pastes of the writings of others. Again, to be clear, the assertions are not mine and I have not left anything out, other than that I did not copy and paste the entire brief into the text of my post (phew). I am not making the claim that there is "a clear distinction"... others are. Let me clarify, though, a couple of things you have said above, as noted:

1. The expression "in its popular sense" most likely means as opposed to "in its legal sense", that is, how people (populace, hence popular) use the term, instead of the term-of-art strict "legal sense." The paragraph should be read carefully then with that understanding to be clear whether the Justice is using the word in its legal sense, or if he is talking about how the word is used in its popular sense.

2. Where the opinion states "The word automobile is also used..." may also be referring to the popular usage. I'd have to read the whole context (or, someone who is a lawyer could likely interpret it better than I).

3. I have never asserted that "automobiles are not for commercial use". They clearly can be used commercially as taxicabs. This is where the definitions become confusing for some. The definitions seem to use the terms to indicate that when a (and this is where it seems cumbersome) mechanized conveyance is used in commerce, it is a "vehicle" (for that commerce).

Example: Joe buys an automobile and travels around to work, to the store and to visit friends. It's a pleasure (as he pleases) conveyance. He is then "travelling" in his "automobile."

Joe goes into the taxi business and decides to use this automobile as a vehicle for his taxi business. He is then the "operator" of a taxi business "driving" a "motor vehicle" in "traffic". Yes, "operator" and "traffic" have specific legal meanings, too.

The next two cases you cite are not from New Hampshire, so forgive me for not taking the time to explain why they don't support your claims.

Again, I don't cite any cases, I have pointed to and pasted in briefs by others who cite cases. Secondly, the states don't stray too far from each other or from English or Canadian uses of legal terms, and they often do refer to each other in matters decided at equity - including Canadians referring to USA state cases, since, having only 10% of our population, they might have only 10% of the case volume, so look also to USA cases for precedents.

Next you continue by selectively quoting the US code.

Again, to be clear, I don't quote the US code, but I have pasted in a case brief that apparently does.

The distinction is made very clear in Title 18 USC 31:

"Motor vehicle" means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

"Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Again you have conveniently left out important language.  One need only look at the section to which you refer to see that it begins

"In this chapter, the following definitions apply:"

See?  Those definitions only apply to "this chapter."  "This chapter" is "Aircraft and Motor Vehicles" in the federal criminal code.  It deals with destruction of motor vehicle facilites.  It has nothing to do with New Hampshire state driver's license provisions.  Your application of these definitions out-of-context is misleading to say the least!

Again, for clarification, I have not left out any important language, other than that I did not paste in the entire brief. You may be referring to the author of the brief whom, we have agreed above, we do not know. No one has claimed that this brief applies to New Hampshire state driver's license provisions - the states where the author claims the brief has supported cases is stated at the top of the page as being Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia - the author does not even claim that it has led to successes there. The reason the US codes have nothing to do with New Hampshire state driver's license provisions is because the US has nothing to do with New Hampshire state drivers licenses - it is a state issue. The author of the brief most likely includes the federal definition to show that their usage is consistent with state usage, but I cannot accurately speak to his motive.

I know, I know - it can't be that reality isn't what we thought it was, can it? It's like the Matrix!

I know it's fun to think you have discovered some secret legal truth that differs from common sense.  That would be nice.  Believe me, I don't want to have to get a driver's license either.  But the law in New Hampshire requires it if you want to operate your pleasure conveyance on a public way.  If you don't believe me, try using your arguments in a New Hampshire court.

I'll be happy to wager with you on the outcome.

I don't think that I have discovered some secret legal truth, as I have not done the research to make any discoveries, but others apparently have and make the claim that the words are as defined in the various cases and dictionaries that they cite. There are those in New-Hampshire that differ with your opinion that "the law in New Hampshire requires it if you want to operate your pleasure conveyance on a public way" and they live their lives accordingly without suffering harrassment or punishment for not having a drivers license.

Since this is a topic that seems to interest you, I would be glad to have you meet with them, if they are willing, to continue the discussion, research and discovery process with them. I definitely, again, don't advise anyone to take this approach, since the men that I know of who claim to successfully take this approach have researched it for many years and have taken all the necessary steps and made all the necessary preparations. There are a couple of additional steps that must be taken, rather than just asserting something to the law enforcement officer late one night. Or, we could set up a conference call with Dave Lindsay in Canada. I don't have his present number, but could get it from a friend in Ottawa.

Further, I'm not not involved in or plan to be involved in a legal challenge on this issue in the New Hampshire courts, since I have chosen to focus my efforts elsewhere, and, finally, I don't wager.

It may be time for us to set up another "Right to Travel" workshop. Sounds like there is a lot of interest in the subject.

[jaqeboy]

BTW, Attorney Josh Gordon in Concord has some knowledge of New Hampshire Supreme Court opinions on "right to travel" cases. We could probably ask him about these cases. He's very libertarian-friendly.

We could also possibly ask our legislators for assistance in understanding the state laws through their legal support staff in Legislative Services, though they might be limited somehow in "giving legal advice."

[mackler]

You said; "All the cases cited are from other states." So it appears you are asserting that Article 4, Section 1 "judicial proceedings" don't exist or have validity?

Dick!  Nice to see you here!  Would you believe that I thought of you while I was reading the legal fallacies being repeated in this thread?  Do you and jaqeboy know each other?  I think you two might get along well.

Just for the public record, I have a standing offer to Mr. armlaw: I have offered to wager anything--money, property, public humiliation--that the numerous legal theories that Mr. armlaw is pushing are false.  I've offered to let our bet be judged by any juris doctor of his choice.  I have even offered to publicly announce the falsity of his claims so as to enable him to sue me for defamation and to let the question of the falsity of his legal claims be adjudged by a court of law, and to litigate the matter all the way to the US Supreme Court if he wants.  I even promised I wouldn't say anything in court, and that he could do all the talking!

So far Mr. armlaw has declined to accept my challenge.    Obviously he is not very confident in the correctness of his assertions.  After several weeks of back-and-forth with him I have lost interest in such waste of time.  When he's ready to put his money where his mouth is I will take the time necessary to debunk his claims.

Now, back to the issue at hand:

First, jaqeboy, unfortunately I do not believe that Black's law dictionary is available online for free.  I have access through my school.  However, the print version is not very expensive, and if you're interested in the law, it might be a good investment.  Of course you can find it in libraries.

Regarding your generous offer to put me in touch with purveyors of these ideas, I appreciate the offer, but I don't really care.  I have enough confidence in my ability to read the relevant cases and statutes and come to my own conclusions.  If I haven't persuaded you, that's fine.  I am just worried about other people reading this thread, who might come away with incorrect ideas about what the law is, and perhaps get themselves into legal troubles believing what I consider to be legal crackpottery.

Now, if you would like to invite Mr. Gordon to give this thread a read, and to consider what I've written, I would be very interested in whether he agrees with me or not, since you say he is legally educated and not the unknown author of that poorly written brief.  I would be surprised if Mr. Gordon, as a lawyer, disagreed with me.  If that were the case I would certainly be open to adjusting my analysis.

[Caleb]

With all due respect, jaqe and mackler ... who gives two shits what the law is? Is our goal to live free or to follow the silly little laws of every hack who comes along and carries the pretentious title of "legislator"?

[Kat Kanning]

Bravo, Caleb

[mackler]

With all due respect, jaqe and mackler ... who gives two shits what the law is? Is our goal to live free or to follow the silly little laws of every hack who comes along and carries the pretentious title of "legislator"?

Who cares what the law is?  (which FYI is not all legislator-created.)  I suppose you'd have to take a survey to get an accurate answer, but in my estimation it includes the majority of the population, and occasionally even the guys with guns and badges.

A few weeks ago, Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani had a little back-and-forth during a debate.  Ron Paul was pointing out the reason he supposed the US was hated by terrorists.  Rudy tried to make it sound like Ron Paul was making excuses for the terrorists.  Ron Paul correctly pointed out that it's only intelligent to try to understand one's enemy, and doing so in no way legitimated that enemy.

Just because I seek to understand the system doesn't mean I support it.


I'm just curious Caleb...suppose a lone police officer was trying to arrest you for something illegitimate--some victimless "crime", say--and you had a gun.  Would you live free and defend yourself, or would you give two shits about what the silly little law is?